What should a female breastplate really look like

[TMZuk]

What to talk realism? Screw realism....people do NOT watch movies, play games or read fantasy books because they want realism. If I wanted realism I wouldn't touch any form of entertainment.....the worst argument that can be made here is about realism. Why aren't people arguing realism in trying to say there should be no magic in the game? That IS what pure realism people should say. Take your garbage arguments about political correctness elsewhere......games like this are NOT made to adhere to 21st century political agendas.  Same to all the romance and sexual orientation arguments....go find some other forums and other people to annoy.

 

I hope obsidian does not give in to these kinds of trash arguments. Want to see awesome armor for females? Here you go:

 

Thank you Larian!!!!

 

And having something like that in the game is something that'll ensure my girffriend will stop playing after half an hour, with a disgusted expression on her face.

 

And why shouldn't she? I'd ~love~ to see your face, if all the male armours are pink, and cliché homo-erotic. Perhaps with an exaggerated cod-piece to make room for the protagonists huge male attachment? Sort of sausage-shaped and pointing forward, perhaps?

 

Unfortunately, there's a large number of immature boys playing video-games. Immature boys who believe the only purpose of women in games are to cater to their juvenile fantasies. Get over yourself already.

Edited April 30, 2013 by TMZuk

[Gfted1]

 

This is art from the new Divinity game? Excellent, I like the vibe. I guess I should mosey over to their forums and get caught up. I bought into the game and I literally know nothing about it at all.

[Kjaamor]

Ask GR Anything: Do boobs actually sell games?

http://www.gamesradar.com/ask-gr-anything-do-boobs-actually-sell-games/

 

Even aside from the limitations of that article, if we accept it to be representative of the truth it still leaves the fact that games are often marketed on their boob count or this is included within, so the point still stands.

 

 

Just so you know, this is a fallacy, often used while discussing realism in games. 

 

The problem of a person advocating this position is a misunderstanding of the opposition and what they're asking for. 

 

Magic and dragons are fantastical and out of this world on purpose. They're something we do not have any reference for, only parallels at best. Whether or not the game contains dragons and magic, the only relevant part is if it has people in armour. If it does, we have a ton of reference and experience from real life. If the game's laws of physics are similar to our world (not counting in magic of course), if the humanoids wearing the armour are similar to humans, there is absolutely no reason for the armour not to be functional. We know how it works, why lower our chance of immersion by showing something obviously not functional, or just silly? 

 

Of course the armour doesn't have to look like Earth armours from the middle ages, but IF it's significantly different, the designer should know why it's different. Actually tying an outlanding cool looking design into the world's specific features is awesome and will only strengthen immersion.

 

It's actually quite similar with dragons as well. If you look at early dragons in fantasy art, they were either quite badly constructed and don't look functional at all, or they were just big lizards, directly referenced from iguanas. As the genre evolved, dragon stereotypes began to crystalize. Nowadays you still get dragons which don't look like they could "work" as real animals, but you also get Todd Lockwood's dragons, which are absolutely stunning in how accurate and believable their anatomy is. (his anatomical approach draws strong influence from cats btw, other DnD authors used pitbulls for instance)

 

Magic certainly changes things, I can well imagine magic armours looking quite strange and awesome, perhaps even showing a bit of skin (ventilation? vanity? who knows, mages are weird). 

But plain old metal/leather/cloth armour is just armour, we know what works and how it works, there's no need to blame magic and then invent a square wheel.

 

 

Well, firstly the armour, like magic and Dragons, can be equally as fantastical and out of this world, and is equally done so on purpose. Furthermore, the argument I would make for armour is exactly that which you give for Dragons: We have a reference point (Say... Plate/Iguanas) which we use to create something fantastical, and as the genre evolves and these stereotypes form we find ourselves further from our reference point and eventually into the realm of the Dragons and Thongs we know. The reality is, and let's be clear the IE games were no stranger to this, that in terms of appearance armour has, within the genre, long, LONG since evolved into sex-specific, revealing clothing. Like so many things in the fantasy genre, the leap from functional immersion to creative design was made.

 

Tldnr; Amour started as Iguanas and now we have Dragons.

 

Again, though, I'm not by any means supporting or even really advocating the use of sex-specific armour. My issue is just with the 'realism' standpoint.

 

I suppose I could bring up the fact that the very reason we have no examples of gender-specific medieval armour in reality is because we had something of a shortage of medieval female knights. Evidently Patriachal society, but certain not helped by the fact that there is an overwhelming trend that men are stronger than women and were thus better suited to such hand-to-hand combat. There again is something we have tons of reference and experience of in real life, but we choose to ignore it for fantasy purposes.

[Merlkir]

 

Well, firstly the armour, like magic and Dragons, can be equally as fantastical and out of this world

 

Yes, I say so in my last paragraph. That is the creative part while dealing with magic. But, there are still a lot of non magical armours which would function the same as on Earth. BTW, my iguana example of dragon design is not an equivalent of using earthly plate designs. A scaled up iguana does not look convincing, because animal anatomy changes drastically with size. (proportions especially, even if they both have claws and fangs)

so for the artists to use iguanas was a first step, but the scaling up didn't lead to convincing designs of dragons, who are supposed to be massive flying creatures. It took serious study of anatomy of other animals (like dogs, lions and the only huge lizards we know - dinosaurs) to evolve dragons into something quite believable.

 

Armour went through an evolution of its own, yes. And yes, not all the branches led to functionality, the vast majority went into a strange mix of historical inspiration and sexy revealing stereotypes. 

 

What the "realism" crowd is asking for is not to copy existing earth armour. It's about that sweet spot of understanding reality and functionality and using it to design something new and specific to this particular fantastic world with magic in it.

[Kjaamor]

Yes, I say so in my last paragraph. That is the creative part while dealing with magic. But, there are still a lot of non magical armours which would function the same as on Earth. BTW, my iguana example of dragon design is not an equivalent of using earthly plate designs. A scaled up iguana does not look convincing, because animal anatomy changes drastically with size. (proportions especially, even if they both have claws and fangs)

so for the artists to use iguanas was a first step, but the scaling up didn't lead to convincing designs of dragons, who are supposed to be massive flying creatures. It took serious study of anatomy of other animals (like dogs, lions and the only huge lizards we know - dinosaurs) to evolve dragons into something quite believable.

 

Armour went through an evolution of its own, yes. And yes, not all the branches led to functionality, the vast majority went into a strange mix of historical inspiration and sexy revealing stereotypes. 

 

What the "realism" crowd is asking for is not to copy existing earth armour. It's about that sweet spot of understanding reality and functionality and using it to design something new and specific to this particular fantastic world with magic in it.

 

 

Yet the goal of the modification was not so much to be believable as it was to be fantastical. Dragon and armour design in fantasy have both been focused upon aesthetics rather than anatomy, as it were.

 

I think your assertion of what the realism crowd want is fair, and matches my understanding. I just think that the basis of creation for the armour they do not want is wholly similar to the basis of creation for the giant flying lizards they do want. As such, to fly one under the banner of realism without the slightest critique of the other can itself be criticised. That criticism is not a logical fallacy.

Edited April 30, 2013 by Kjaamor

[Merlkir]

I think a lot of personal critique of what we're presented with is built on or even spawned by specific personal interests and education. Some players know a lot about swrods, others are biologists and can see at a glance that this dragon would break its wings if it tried to fly. So it's a given there isn't a Unified Front for Realistic Depiction of Everything in Games.

 

Then again, if someone points the dragon wings out and gives a good explanation, the previously indifferent sword lover is quite likely to agree. 

 

Of course there are conservative fans of fantasy who don't need no realism when they're used to iguana dragons and bikini mail, they'll just feel annoyed by all the PC folk ruining their fantasy with boring realism.

Edited April 30, 2013 by Merlkir

[Kjaamor]

I think a lot of personal critique of what we're presented with is built on or even spawned by specific personal interests and education. Some players know a lot about swrods, others are biologists and can see at a glance that this dragon would break its wings if it tried to fly. So it's a given there isn't a Unified Front for Realistic Depiction of Everything in Games.

 

Then again, if someone points the dragon wings out and gives a good explanation, the previously indifferent sword lover is quite likely to agree. 

 

Of course there are conservative fans of fantasy who don't need no realism when they're used to iguana dragons and bikini mail, they'll just feel annoyed by all the PC folk ruining their fantasy with boring realism.

 

I have every confidence in the medieval enthusiasts of this thread and beyond to spot that a low-cut leather cuirass flies rather less in the face of realism than gigantic, flying, fire-breathing lizards.

 

Again, though, personally I don't support bikini mail!

 

Truthfully I think the whole 15 pages of this topic is rather grandiose if not utterly moot since the practical zoom level for combat is likely to be such that its going to be pretty difficult if not impossible to distinguish boob-mail from plate-mail!

[Elerond]

I think one of the bigest reson why I think this topic is quite moot is because that Obsidian has represented us their vision of aesthetics style which they plan to use in PE (functional, only minor differences between sexes and historicaly influenced but adapted to be its own style) in their updates considering project and backers have given this style somewhat unanimous approval.

 

 

 

 

 

[Amentep]

I have every confidence in the medieval enthusiasts of this thread and beyond to spot that a low-cut leather cuirass flies rather less in the face of realism than gigantic, flying, fire-breathing lizards.

Does raise the question though, what was the gigantic, flying, fire-breathing lizard doing in the low-cut leather cuirass in the first place though... 

 

 

Again, though, personally I don't support bikini mail!

I'm led to believe they're not particularly supportive themselves...

 

 

Thank you, thank you, I'll be here all week. Be sure to try the veal...

 

OBTOPIC: I like the look that Obsidian has provided so far.

[Monte Carlo]

Are people *really* still

[AGX-17]

Are people *really* still

My thoughts exactly.

 

Of course there are conservative fans of fantasy who don't need no realism when they're used to iguana dragons and bikini mail, they'll just feel annoyed by all the PC folk ruining their fantasy with boring realism.

Then P:E probably isn't for them. Well, I'm sure the creeps on a certain family of sites will come up with mods to rectify the situation, STATIM.

[Darth Trethon]

@Elrond

 

I like the changes.....the bottom ones are all from before the KS ended and before pre-production started while the top is from later on, during pre-production iirc so it seems like they are very much learning the errors of their ways....by the time production actually starts hopefully they will be asking Larian for guidance and further improving towards awesomeness.

[Elerond]

All of the pictures have made after KS ended.

 

Armour concepts ( 27 March 2013 )

http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/63557-update-47-odds-and-ends/

 

Godlike concept (20 February 2013)

http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/63395-update-43-pretty-and-technical/

 

Orlan concept (30 January 2013)

http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/63273-update-40-orlan-first-look-and-ziets-on-pantheon-design/

 

And in that concept from Larian we don't see any armour, only prudish dryad (how else you describe tree spirit who wears clothes, to cover sensitive areas ).

Edited April 30, 2013 by Elerond

[TrashMan]

 

What to talk realism? Screw realism....people do NOT watch movies, play games or read fantasy books because they want realism. If I wanted realism I wouldn't touch any form of entertainment.....the worst argument that can be made here is about realism. Why aren't people arguing realism in trying to say there should be no magic in the game? That IS what pure realism people should say.

 

While I disagree with most of your post in the context of this thread, I agree that the repeated arguments for 'realism' do display an odd juxtaposition between using historically accurate armour while you use your magic spells to kill a Dragon. I often find myself arguing on the other side to people in favour of 'immersion', but it does seem to hold a rather more sensible base position in the context than 'realism'.

 

It only appears so. For armor you have real-life knowledge of it's working and examples to draw from. You have a basis for realism and believability.

You don't have that for magic. and evne then you can make magic more or less"believable".

[Elerond]

"Fantasy" clothes in German style

(warning link includes pictures of nude woman)

Edited April 30, 2013 by Gfted1
Had to edit that link out Elerond. A bit too risque for a family friendly forum, even with your warning.

[Lephys]

It might matter to some. You'll find that people are like that and different things matter to different people.

It might matter to some people that everything in the game isn't blue and sparkly. But that doesn't make sense to base game design upon. That's why we don't debate subjective perspectives. Is someone wrong for wanting a game in which everything is blue and sparkly? No. Nor is the developer wrong for not making a game that caters to that player's subjective preference.

 

This little tidbit right here is why I can't continue this little debate with you, because you're just preventing it from accomplishing anything at all. I say "it doesn't matter," and you say "Maybe it does!". No, the mattering I'm talking about is objective. I already told you that. The reason it doesn't matter if you stray 15% from a realistic breastplate design is because, in the game world, the shape of the breastplate model doesn't beget the properties of the breastplate. So, it quite literally doesn't matter what the breastplate is shaped like, objectively and truthfully, in the way that it does in real life. In real life, if you could build whatever breastplate you wanted (with dragons and concavities abounding) and it wouldn't be any less effective than any other breastplate, wouldn't you do it if you were a rich lordling knight and loved dragons and imaginative designs? Yes, OF COURSE you would. You wouldn't go "Nope... better keep it plain, for no reason at all."

 

That said, we go back to the subjective. Which is more correct? To design into the game a semblence of realism, or to just give everyone crazy ridiculous dragon-plate with boob-cones and armor that doesn't even cover 70% of the body, yet still protects really well? Well, obviously the developers would like to go with the realistic approach. So, naturally, some people aren't going to be happy with that, but it's not wrong to do so.. But, guess what? If one of their artists fails to model a breastplate EXACTLY like a real breastplate, it doesn't lose effectiveness. The world spins on, and everyone's fine. Not to mention all the differences in the world (Magic, soul-powers, mythical creatures and fictitious substances, completely imagined cultural differences and technologies, etc.). There are SO MANY things supporting a mild difference in armor production and design from perfect realism that it's not even funny.

 

And, I'm sorry, but your PC doesn't bark orders at the other "NPCs" in your party. You, the player, literally control them, on-the-fly. I can't even begin to fathom why you would attempt to argue that party members/companions are actually NPCs. Why would your main character be your "main" character if there weren't non-main characters that were also your characters? We'd just call the main character "The PC" at that point.

 

I'll tell ya what... after P:E comes out, you play the game, with a group of 6 Humans -- 3 male, and 3 female -- and do battle with a group of 10 Human guards -- 5 male and 5 female -- with everyone wearing the same type of plate armor (which actually makes sense, because they're all uniformed guards, and maybe your party of Fighters/warrior-types just recently obtained some plate). Then, have fun with the real-time combat, and tell me you don't have to pause it 18 times throughout to tactically manage the combat whilst keeping track of who goes where. Tell me that's fun, and quantifiably non-problematic in the least. Then we'll talk.

 

Is it the end of the world if it's not like that? For the seven-hundredth time, no. Is it nice to inherently be able to tell the difference between people you could already tell the difference between, even after they both happen to don some plate? Yes. Does it objectively hurt anything to have such a subtle difference? No. No it doesn't. Is Obsidian already doing this? Yes, which is pretty much the only reason I bothered to even get in on this thread and point out that it's not really hurting anything, because it's already being done, and arguing subjective matters is completely and utterly pointless. So, I dug into the objective nature of the decision as best I could.

 

So, if you feel the need to say "Omg, this is the dumbest debate ever" one more time, then just remember one more time that you could've said "Yeah, you're right that there are some objective reasons for the decision, but I still would simply rather it not have been made." Then, we could've merrily gone our separate ways. But, every time you question the legitimacy of everything I'm saying, I'm going to answer. Because, again, I have to assume someone posting on a discussion forum is interested in discussing and understanding the things that are posted.

[Dream]

 

It only appears so. For armor you have real-life knowledge of it's working and examples to draw from. You have a basis for realism and believability.

You don't have that for magic. and evne then you can make magic more or less"believable".

 

 

I have real-life knowledge of physics and chemistry that tells me that many of the effects of magic shouldn't work the way they do.

 

Fireballs should blow out the walls of any room they detonate in (unless they're made out a foot of solid rock).

Getting frozen solid should kill you instantly from the water in your body crystallizing.

Lightning bolts shouldn't have a travel time.

 

When it comes to understanding how these things work we have a "basis for realism and believability." On the other hand a smith making a chain mail bikini and then getting it enchanted with some spell that provides the wearer with an invisible layer of whatever across their whole body can, in fact, be handwaived away as simply being "magic."

[Hormalakh]

Are people *really* still

 

whether its the horse or the monkey, people really want to beat some sort of animal on these forums.

[TrashMan]

 

It might matter to some people that everything in the game isn't blue and sparkly. But that doesn't make sense to base game design upon. That's why we don't debate subjective perspectives. Is someone wrong for wanting a game in which everything is blue and sparkly? No. Nor is the developer wrong for not making a game that caters to that player's subjective preference.

 

This little tidbit right here is why I can't continue this little debate with you, because you're just preventing it from accomplishing anything at all. I say "it doesn't matter," and you say "Maybe it does!".

 

Nope. Everything matters. And nothing matters.

 

 

 

No, the mattering I'm talking about is objective. I already told you that. The reason it doesn't matter if you stray 15% from a realistic breastplate design is because, in the game world, the shape of the breastplate model doesn't beget the properties of the breastplate. So, it quite literally doesn't matter what the breastplate is shaped like, objectively and truthfully, in the way that it does in real life. In real life, if you could build whatever breastplate you wanted (with dragons and concavities abounding) and it wouldn't be any less effective than any other breastplate, wouldn't you do it if you were a rich lordling knight and loved dragons and imaginative designs? Yes, OF COURSE you would. You wouldn't go "Nope... better keep it plain, for no reason at all."

 

I though we already established that "objective" is a highly nebulous term.

 

you keep wielding the terms "objective" and "truthfull" like a mightly hammer...yet you fail to realise what your'e swinging is a tiny tree branch.

 

I already told you "it's a game, so who gives a f****" is not an argument worth a damn.

A game world where things are unintuitive and conflict with the experience and knowledge from RL? Can work, but again, it's a matter of taste.

Yes, if in the setting/lore it is SPECIFICLY stated that shape has no impact, it would make sense for any designs...BUT...if a setting/lore were to say that it acutomaticly looses credibility.

You can't have it both ways.

 

 

 

 

 

That said, we go back to the subjective. Which is more correct?

 

No one. I already told you. Why do you keep pretending that I didn't?

It's more a matter of which prons and cons you like more.

 

 

 

 

And, I'm sorry, but your PC doesn't bark orders at the other "NPCs" in your party. You, the player, literally control them, on-the-fly.

 

Abstraction son...Abstraction.

The player is meant to be one guy whos'e personality and actions he controls. He can INFLUENCE other party memebers, but their personality is their own.

 

 

 

 

I'll tell ya what... after P:E comes out, you play the game, with a group of 6 Humans -- 3 male, and 3 female -- and do battle with a group of 10 Human guards -- 5 male and 5 female -- with everyone wearing the same type of plate armor (which actually makes sense, because they're all uniformed guards, and maybe your party of Fighters/warrior-types just recently obtained some plate). Then, have fun with the real-time combat, and tell me you don't have to pause it 18 times throughout to tactically manage the combat whilst keeping track of who goes where. Tell me that's fun, and quantifiably non-problematic in the least. Then we'll talk.

 

Already played such parties and battles in other games with worse customization than PE will have.

It's fun, and quantifiably non-problematic.

 

 

 

 

Is it the end of the world if it's not like that? For the seven-hundredth time, no. Is it nice to inherently be able to tell the difference between people you could already tell the difference between, even after they both happen to don some plate?

 

And you can stil ltell the difference after you don the plate so your argument is null and void.

 

 

 

Does it objectively hurt anything to have such a subtle difference? No. No it doesn't. Is Obsidian already doing this? Yes, which is pretty much the only reason I bothered to even get in on this thread and point out that it's not really hurting anything, because it's already being done, and arguing subjective matters is completely and utterly pointless. So, I dug into the objective nature of the decision as best I could.

 

 

Does it objective hurt to NOT have such a subtle difference? No.

Also I don't care that it's already begin done. What does it matter at all? Is this some kind of attempt at appeal to authority?

 

 

 

 

So, if you feel the need to say "Omg, this is the dumbest debate ever" one more time, then just remember one more time that you could've said "Yeah, you're right that there are some objective reasons for the decision, but I still would simply rather it not have been made." Then, we could've merrily gone our separate ways. But, every time you question the legitimacy of everything I'm saying, I'm going to answer. Because, again, I have to assume someone posting on a discussion forum is interested in discussing and understanding the things that are posted.

 

As long as you don't bother reading then this debate WILL continue forever. Becasue that's exactly wha I have ben saying from the start. There are reasons for and agaisnt both approaches.

 

[TrashMan]

 

 

It only appears so. For armor you have real-life knowledge of it's working and examples to draw from. You have a basis for realism and believability.

You don't have that for magic. and evne then you can make magic more or less"believable".

 

 

I have real-life knowledge of physics and chemistry that tells me that many of the effects of magic shouldn't work the way they do.

 

Fireballs should blow out the walls of any room they detonate in (unless they're made out a foot of solid rock).

Getting frozen solid should kill you instantly from the water in your body crystallizing.

Lightning bolts shouldn't have a travel time.

 

When it comes to understanding how these things work we have a "basis for realism and believability." On the other hand a smith making a chain mail bikini and then getting it enchanted with some spell that provides the wearer with an invisible layer of whatever across their whole body can, in fact, be handwaived away as simply being "magic."

 

 

Fireballs are just a balls of fire. Not an fireball created by an actual explosion of TNT. So no. Unless a flamethrower burns down a wall that is....

 

Uhh... lighting does have travel-time.

 

And freezing? Are you completely frozen (internally) or merely incased in ice? Speaking of which, there are animals that can survive beign frozen. IIRC, a species of frog to be exact.

 

 

That's not to say that damage done should be taken literaly. After all, a sword blow to the head should kill anyone, right? Durability of combatatns has to be increased in party RPG's, because 1-hit kills in a real-time enviroment with irreplacable units are simply bad gameplay.

If the player controls just one character, than completely realistic injuries can work. But a party?

 

 

But you seem to forget that magic is magic. What even makes you think that magical lighting = real lightning.

 

And seriously? So hadwaving "magic" is impossible in scenario 1 but perfectly possible in 2? Seems to me like you are confused.

 

[Dream]

Fireballs are just a balls of fire. Not an fireball created by an actual explosion of TNT. So no. Unless a flamethrower burns down a wall that is....

 

Uhh... lighting does have travel-time.

 

And freezing? Are you completely frozen (internally) or merely incased in ice? Speaking of which, there are animals that can survive beign frozen. IIRC, a species of frog to be exact.

 

 

Make a baldur's gate size fireball in an enclosed space and see what happens to every single window in the room.

Also people =/= frogs; freeze your hand and tell me what happens when you thaw that ****er out.

Finally watch a lightning bolt and tell me if you can perceive the 3000 mile/sec (give or take depending on air conditions) travel time.

 

Have you ever stepped foot inside a classroom? I'm being serious here.

 

 

That's not to say that damage done should be taken literaly. After all, a sword blow to the head should kill anyone, right? Durability of combatatns has to be increased in party RPG's, because 1-hit kills in a real-time enviroment with irreplacable units are simply bad gameplay.

So when gameplay is concerned realism takes a back seat to enjoyment, but when aesthetics are concerned realism is king (despite many finding unrealistic art styles more enjoyable). Why is that? If it's simply because YOU prefer a realistic aesthetic then that's cool, but just say that; don't pretend there's more to it than that.

 

If the player controls just one character, than completely realistic injuries can work. But a party?

So when you only control one character instagibbing is okay, but when you have characters to spare it's not? What?

 

 

But you seem to forget that magic is magic. What even makes you think that magical lighting = real lightning.

'Cause it does electrical damage.

 

And seriously? So hadwaving "magic" is impossible in scenario 1 but perfectly possible in 2? Seems to me like you are confused.

You can handwaive an invisible force; you can't handwaive how fire works (if your goal is realism, that is).

[Elerond]

You should calculate amount of energy needed to do such fireball and if we take hypotese where one can create such amount energy from vacuum then it should be logical that you can also decimate that energy as easilly or at least call same amount energy to counter act with that energy.

 

And what comes to lightning in BG it's not lightning itself that moves slowly, but that energy masses, like two energy balls which have big potential difference between them which creates lightning between them that moves with slow base towards place where wizard aimed it. Or some other similar explanation that works with science.

[Ffordesoon]

The last couple of pages of this thread make me want to put a gun in my mouth.

[centurionofprix]

 

 

It only appears so. For armor you have real-life knowledge of it's working and examples to draw from. You have a basis for realism and believability.

You don't have that for magic. and evne then you can make magic more or less"believable".

 

 

I have real-life knowledge of physics and chemistry that tells me that many of the effects of magic shouldn't work the way they do.

 

Fireballs should blow out the walls of any room they detonate in (unless they're made out a foot of solid rock).

Getting frozen solid should kill you instantly from the water in your body crystallizing.

Lightning bolts shouldn't have a travel time.

 

When it comes to understanding how these things work we have a "basis for realism and believability." On the other hand a smith making a chain mail bikini and then getting it enchanted with some spell that provides the wearer with an invisible layer of whatever across their whole body can, in fact, be handwaived away as simply being "magic."

 

 

It's still inexplicable (in a serious setting at least) why a character would choose to wear such an item, and why it should be made of mail or in the shape of a bikini rather than, for example, a pair of socks or a normal bikini to be worn *underneath* clothes or another layer of actual armour. Or why they would forego the additional protection afforded by the armour itself (which usually amounts to the bulk of the protection granted by enchanted items anyway).

Edited May 2, 2013 by centurionofprix

[centurionofprix]

The last couple of pages of this thread make me want to put a gun in my mouth.

 

In a good way or a bad way?